Tenant Wants 70% Rent Reduction

baybeejuice on 05/04/2020 - 10:28
Last edited 06/04/2020 - 22:40

Our tenants (a early 50s bf, gf and the gf's son) moved into my 3 bedrooms townhouse in last Dec and signed a year's contract for $470 per week. Yesterday, i got a phone call from real estate saying the tenants broke up and the male tenant is the only one living there now. He's a painter and now has zero dollar income. A screenshot summary of his 3 bank accounts showed $0, $2 and -$10. He has applied for centrelink. Now he's asking for rent to be reduced from $470 to $150! Now we don't know how to go about this. Any advice?

Edit:
Thanks for everyone's advice and comments.
The lease had only the bf's name on it. He had income of $1000 per week when applying for this property. As part of rent reduction prior to moving in, he already painted the whole place. Also, our current home that we are living in was painted 2 years ago.

Edit #2:
Correction: Just had a look at tenant application, the male tenant that is on the lease was getting $2100 gross income per week.

Home & Garden

Comments

    • Mike88 on 05/04/2020 - 10:56
      +260

      When the banks give landlords some compassion with their interest payments I will be happy to pass it on to tenants in need. Until then I am still at a financial loss because of another persons situation. Landlords are not a charity.

      • EightImmortals on 05/04/2020 - 11:03
        +46

        When I suggested that the other week I was descended upon by a pack of howler monkeys. Apparently everyone BUT the banksters needs to buckle up and show some humanity.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2020 - 09:36
          +2

          Bank shareholders have taken a significant reduction to their profits and their value has taken a 20-30% hit. When you take a 20-30% hit to your house price, reduce rents and allow any renters in distress to defer, then you as a landlord can say you're doing it as tough as bank shareholders.

          • EightImmortals on 07/04/2020 - 10:34
            +7

            @[Deactivated]: Mate EVERYBODY has taken a hit, the 30-30% house price correction hasn't happened yet but will and will likely be more than that. The banksters are laughing all the way and even when the defaults start rolling in they have their criminal 'bail-in' scheme ready to go. I have ZERO sympathy for the banks and the hole they dug themselves into.

            If the banksters were ordered to put a hold on business LIKE ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE HAS without piling up more interest and adding to people's woes then ALL mortgage holders, not just landlords, might be able to scrape through the plandemic and resume normal payments. But nothing new here, after the 2008 bankster global meltdown, who got TRILLIONS of taxpayers money while the average citizen got nothing? Trickle down economics is a total scam, trickle up economics is a far better concept. At least it has the virtue of never having been tried.

            • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2020 - 10:53
              -2

              @EightImmortals: As I said, when and if landlords take a 20-30% hit to their property value, reduce rent and allow deferrals they will be as hard hit as bank shareholders like me. It may get worse for landlords, I hope it doesn't, but maybe it will as you predict.

              Landlords who haven't reduced rent are currently pocketing lower interest payments, and generally haven't seen property values fall (probably held up by those low interest rates). Property investors in that category are one of the few investors benefiting from this crisis.

              The ones who have lost their jobs are hardest hit and we should all support them.

              • EightImmortals on 07/04/2020 - 11:20
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: What if the property owner also has bank shares? :)

              • MementoMori on 07/04/2020 - 13:11
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: Hey Chrisoffel, as you seem so keen to help perhaps you could you make up the rental payments?

                • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2020 - 14:26

                  @MementoMori: Yes I am keen to help those in need. Propping up rent to ensure that landlords profit from record low interest rates doesn't meet that threshold. Landlords in distress through lost employment etc should also be supported.

                  • Birdseye on 08/04/2020 - 07:50

                    @[Deactivated]: Landlords are providing an essential service (housing) in exchange for an agreed amount of rent. I just can't understand why people think people who provide housing should do so for free without any compensation. Go into Coles, fill up your trolley and then ask for a 70% reduction at the register. See how far you get. But no-one is saying groceries should be free.

                    Note, I'm a temporary and unintentional landlord (had planned to move in, but housing market means I can't sell my own house), and I'm providing a 50% rent reduction to my tenants. But the idea that landlords should just suck it up and not even try and ask for rent or arrears is completely ridiculous. Very few businesses are providing services for free, and no-one is forcing them to.

                    Losing your job/income at any time is terrible. But people have been dealing with this terrible eventuality throughout the history of our country. People losing their job today are in line for double (jobseeker) to triple (job keeper) the normal income support, plus they are being told they don't have to pay rent, plus there's free childcare, plus various other payments and waivers. There has literally never been a better time to be unemployed. And everyone is all for this extra support. But as soon as landlords try and ask for some support for their lost income, they get howled down.

                    • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 08:50

                      @Birdseye: A 50% reduction of income is substantial, I’m sorry to hear that. One of the biggest problems with real estate is how it’s effecting people so unevenly. I think government could help here and distribute the costs more widely.

                      You’re right housing is essential, and like water, power, telcos no one is going to get disconnected. And like those services you can put the person in arrears (as I understand it). There are also services for those who cannot afford food.

                      I was reacting to the sentiment that banks should absorb the costs not landlords. And trying to show that as a bank shareholder my investment has already been hit harder than the great majority of real estate investments. So why is it fair to pile all the costs onto me, particularly in cases where full rent means landlords are profiting from record low interest rates. Banks like all the other services are willing to put people in arrears, and I’m happy for banks to take further losses as long as there’s some amount of sharing the costs.

        • Mike88 on 05/04/2020 - 13:34
          +61

          People need to work out their own finances and not rely on charity of strangers. If you can't keep up with the payments don't expect someone else to cover it for you at their expense. Did these people not plan for bad times also?
          Just like any other business landlords expect to be able to change the factors that are causing bad debts. With the governments current policy of banning evictions you are stuck with bad debt. Even if you aren't able to find another renter in these times you could at least be able to do some repairs/painting/cleaning.

            • Mike88 on 05/04/2020 - 13:54
              +12

              @Vote for Pedro: If the government was looking out for the greater good they would stop interest on loans for people subsidising their renters during the eviction ban period.
              I know this is an extraordinary time but if i lose my property because renters stop paying then it helps neither of us.
              Renters should be accessing their super, applying for welfare payments and anything else they can do before they ask for rent reductions.

                • Mike88 on 05/04/2020 - 14:32
                  +41

                  @wordplay: Why should I pull money from my super before the person owing me money does? Is it just because you think all landlords are rich and should lose money before renters?
                  I have worked hard for what I have don't want to worsen my financial situation because of someone else's financial problems.

                    • Mike88 on 05/04/2020 - 14:39
                      +37

                      @wordplay: Yes renters should take the hit before the landlord because it is their job that was lost. If I lost my job am I able to ask for more rent from my tenants to cover the mortgage?

                        • Mike88 on 05/04/2020 - 15:01
                          +20

                          @wordplay: Has your landlord asked for a 70% increase in rent at one time? Increases in rent are not always because the landlord wants more money in their pocket. Each year services increase in cost, land tax, council rates, water rates.
                          There is good and bad landlords just as there are tenants. If you are a painful tenant the landlord has no incentive to want to keep you in their property. Same goes for landlords if you don't repair/maintain the property people will want to leave.
                          I have not raised the rent on either of my 2 properties in the 5 years I have rented them even though my costs have increased. I have good tenants and would like to keep them, however will not be offering rent decreases until every other option for them has been exhausted.

                        • Ultramup on 06/04/2020 - 01:01
                          +6

                          @wordplay: Now imagine your landlord asking you for 70% more rent at the same time the government announces that you must stay with your current landlord.

                          • wordplay on 08/04/2020 - 19:06

                            @Ultramup: I guess I would have to pay my whole wage and take out a loan to pay for the rest
                            I am actually expecting something similar to this once the eviction freeze is over to be honest.

                      • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2020 - 09:31
                        -2

                        @Mike88: This isn't normally market forces, the guy lost his income because of a government mandated shutdown to save the lives of older Australians. The Government has similarly mandated no evictions. The landlord may be forced to loose some or all of his investment property income, I see this as equivalent.

                        We're all in this together, we all have to take a hit.

                        Or the Government pays to ensure that real estate investors are the only people not to take a hit in crisis. And younger Australian can pay off the debt with yet another hit to their future prosperity to help older Australians.

                        • Birdseye on 08/04/2020 - 07:53
                          +2

                          @[Deactivated]: People who lose their income (job) are getting double to triple standard unemployment payments to help them through. Landlords who lose their income are getting nothing. How is that fair?

                          • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 09:02

                            @Birdseye: And there’s no asset tests, so Landlords can claim just as much unemployment payments as anyone. Unless they have another job outside investments in which case, why should they be the only Australians to have their income topped up above the flat rate everyone is getting.

                            I’m very fortunate to have a regular job. My investments have taken a huge hit to income and capital, but I don’t see why the government should give me a handout when I’m still earning more than the unemployment benefit. I’m not sure I understand why real estate is a special case of investment that should, but I’m open to being convinced.

                            • Birdseye on 08/04/2020 - 10:55
                              +1

                              @[Deactivated]: I guess it comes down to a matter of definition. You define rental income as investment income, which is fluctuates and is not guaranteed (like investment income from say, share dividends). I classify it income from the provision of goods and services, similar to buying groceries, petrol, paying someone to fix your roof etc.

                              In the second case, there is a contract in place which stipulates the amount of money to be paid for the provision of goods or services. There is no such contract in place in relation to investment income - it is inconsistent and not guaranteed by its very nature.

                              I think a more appropriate comparison is between housing values and share values - both are taking a battering, and I expect no support to cover that. Nor should there be. But I believe people should be compensated if they are forced to provide goods or services, which they own or supply, to others for free.

                              • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 11:22

                                @Birdseye: I do see where you are coming from, I'm not unsympathetic. But I think it's more fuzzy that one or the other. Banks are also providing a service, with contracts that landlords pay them back. I see this as very similar to renters contracts with Landlords. Banks are allowing landlords to defer payments, if landlords get to the point where they can't pay the bank back, should the government pay the banks for all the loans that go bad? I would say no, unless it gets to the point of banks collapsing, because that is a worse outcome for society. Even then a bailout should be a loan, to be paid back.

                                Similarly for telcos, they are providing goods and services under a contract, but they're allowing people to continue using them without paying. This is happening for many other good and services, should the government also cover their losses.

                                So yes rental is a contract for a service, but there is still the risk of the other party not being able to fulfil this contract (as is happening in many other sectors).

                                I'd be okay with a bailout for landlords where lost income is covered by the government if there is a scheme in place to recoup those costs back off property investors in time. Otherwise is it really fair to ask younger Australians to pay to protect the property investments of predominantly older wealthy Australians?

                                • Birdseye on 08/04/2020 - 11:30

                                  @[Deactivated]: I agree, there are shades of grey here. I guess where I'm coming from is that while banks are (apparently) going to allow mortgage holders to defer payments, those missed payments and interest will be capitalised, meaning it all has to be paid back with added interest over time. Which again, I'm fine with - as long as tenants who then miss payments also pay back what they owe eventually. My issue is that while the bank will make very sure I pay them back, I am less confident of landlords ability to get rent arrears back from tenants in either the short or long term.

                                  • Birdseye on 08/04/2020 - 11:32
                                    +1

                                    @Birdseye: I should also note that I am not going to be seeking back the 50% reduction on rent I am giving my tenants over the next three months. That will just be a reduction for that period. But to keep going at that level beyond then I would need some sort of surety that it would eventually be paid back.

                                  • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 11:50

                                    @Birdseye: I would agree that banks are better setup for debt recovery than your average property investor. On the other hand banks stand to loose far more money than 6 months of interest repayments if the property market goes south and landlords default. And perhaps property investors can sell their debt / use collection agencies like other services do. Having said this I suspect many service companies will just absorb some debts from this time period.

                                    Ultimately if I could go back in time two months, I'd much rather be a property investor than one of banks, airlines or any number of industries. On average property investor seem one of the least effected investors with low interest rates and high asset prices, albeit that some are taking harder hits to income. Sharing the income losses across the property sector maybe reasonable. But a measure where the government covers all rent, would seem pretty unfair to most other investors.

                                    Edit: That's nice of you to take such a reduction, your tents are lucky to have a generous landlord.

                        • wordplay on 08/04/2020 - 19:09
                          +1

                          @[Deactivated]: unfortunately I don't think landlords are prepared to let a little pandemic and mass joblosses effect their rental income.
                          They have worked hard for this investment and may lose money if the tennant does not pay up on time, they have stress and expenses that a only a landowner would understand.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 05/04/2020 - 16:27
                    -8

                    @Mike88: Oh the selflessness

                  • ozbjunkie on 06/04/2020 - 14:34
                    +1

                    @Mike88: Speaking of worsening your financial situation, don't reduce the rent, recommend he sublets if you feel comfortable with that, or keep the rent the same but don't expect to receive it for many months.

                    If you reduce the rent, the 6 month no evictions law will still apply, but you'll be owed less money.

                • elgrande on 05/04/2020 - 20:34
                  +1

                  @wordplay: You can access super to prevent losing property if you are living in it - not if its being rented.

              • Vote for Pedro on 05/04/2020 - 16:29
                -6

                @Mike88: Don’t disagree on the interest aspect. But as we know, Libs and banks - only looking out for each other

              • vindictus on 07/04/2020 - 04:40
                +1

                @Mike88: Lmao ruin your future nest egg retirement savings to keep landlords afloat. The gall of this

                • ozhunter on 07/04/2020 - 05:05
                  +2

                  @vindictus: Nothing to do with keep landlords afloat. It's to do with paying for the use of the house.

                  • vindictus on 07/04/2020 - 06:23
                    -2

                    @ozhunter: paying for the use of the house means jack shit. If a tenant can't pay and gets evicted, the house sits empty anyway costing the same amount of money it would've otherwise.

                    If landlords can't afford losses in their investment then THEY should've budgeted better. Property seems to be the only investment vehicle in Australia that people expect to ALWAYS go up and ALWAYS pay, despite it literally being someone's shelter. Dipping into super to cover dumb landlords is absolutely abhorrent and anyone that suggests it should be ashamed of themselves

                    • ozhunter on 07/04/2020 - 15:17

                      @vindictus:

                      the house sits empty anyway costing the same amount of money it would've otherwise.

                      While irrelevant, that's why LL want paying tenants.

                      The issue is using someone else's property without paying them as agreed on the contract.

            • jowu15 on 05/04/2020 - 21:56
              -3

              @Vote for Pedro: Do not landlord have a right to minimise their business loss!!!

              Australian not recognise China as a free market and Even China is not order Landlord has no right to ban eviction of tenants

              • monkeyfood on 06/04/2020 - 11:34
                +3

                @jowu15: yeah china also doesn't follow human rights and "dissapear" anybody that practices free thinking

              • wordplay on 08/04/2020 - 19:13

                @jowu15: At the moment there are laws stopping businesses from running, why are landlords so special. My dentist can't open the surgery to conduct daily business. But a landlord must have the right to minimise business losses why are they more important?

                • dizzle on 09/04/2020 - 08:27

                  @wordplay: Yes, but the dentist is not providing the same service for less money. What you seem to be asking for is the dentist still performs for 30% of their income.

                  The landlord is still providing a service (the property, maintenance if required). If plumbing/heating/hot water breaks down in the next month, the tenant is still going to expect that to be fixed, even if they have not paid.

                  • wordplay on 09/04/2020 - 09:13

                    @dizzle: Oh so its just like the dentist is having a holiday, as they are not doing any work its not an issue, didnt look at it like that. thanks.

                  • wordplay on 09/04/2020 - 19:27

                    @dizzle: and if the house was empty you would not have any of those costs.

                    • dizzle on 10/04/2020 - 09:20

                      @wordplay: However if the house was empty, the landlord would have the chance to get someone else in. (whether that's realistic or not is another matter).

                      And it's not about the dentist having a holiday, it would be about forcing him to work for 30% of his salary because the government gives him no choice.

                      However having read up further, the point could be moot. If he keeps the rent at the normal price, and the tenant only pays 0%-30%, they can't evict. But the tenant still owes the arrears when the period is over. So the landlord can decide to let it go then or to chase up what is owed after that.

                      • wordplay on 10/04/2020 - 11:27

                        @dizzle: the government is currently giving her no choice to open and work, but she still has all the costs of the premises that an investment property owner does and people here are advocating that landlords need to have the right to minimise business losses as though they are being hard done by while the rest of society is being given a free ride.

            • TilacVIP on 07/04/2020 - 07:47

              @Vote for Pedro: And to think, you actually have been negged on something that is true. What a nasty world we live in.

          • TilacVIP on 07/04/2020 - 07:44
            +1

            @Mike88: Yep, I'm sure we all planned for a once in a 100 year black swan event.

        • sir_bazz on 05/04/2020 - 13:51
          +3

          While true, I don't think many businesses would've planned for a once in a century pandemic where the state government over rides the terms of your contracts.

          But for the OP, I'd approach it as a negotiation. Make a counter offer of a 30% discount to start off with.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2020 - 15:11
          +25

          Most businesses will experience bad debts. Those that don’t plan…

          The plan is exercising the legal entitlement to evict non paying tenants.

          The government has decided alter that contract.

          Everyone is happy to benefit from someone else getting robbed… until they are robbed.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2020 - 07:19
        +1

        As an owner of banking stocks I’ve already taken a ~30% hit to my capital. House prices have barely moved, and landlords are complaining about a haircut to income for 6 months. This is unbelievable. Yes property investors should share some of the load, like every other Australian.

        • TilacVIP on 07/04/2020 - 07:58
          +4

          Some of these Landlords make it sound like they're the only one that are suffering & the rest of us are getting a free ride. Yet no mention of the big discounts in interest rate reductions they have been getting over the past 5 years, while those non-mortage holders, are getting their interest cut to the sh!te on their deposits.

          Yep, a case of landlords playing the victim!

          • wordplay on 08/04/2020 - 19:16

            @TilacVIP: Landlords need a bailout from the government. Scomo could wipe all mortgage debt from investment properties and I think Landlords would still want the tenant to pay the rent during the pandemic "they signed a contract"

        • MementoMori on 07/04/2020 - 13:15

          You do realise that practically every Australian owns bank stocks (through their superannuation)…?

          So to use your logic, the landlords have already suffered.

          Sounds like a bitter share investor hating on property investors - "I have suffered, so should they"

          • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2020 - 14:17
            +2

            @MementoMori: Yes there is a huge economic cost, and I think it should be shared. I was responding to the comments that the banks should take the hit (make interest rates 0), not the property investors. Why should banks take further hits when they are already doing worse than property investment?

            And yes most Australians own some portion of bank stocks, but the percentage of their wealth this constitutes varies widely. That's a silly argument.

            • MementoMori on 11/04/2020 - 11:46

              @[Deactivated]: I agree with you - banks should take the hit.

              They receive the lions share of the taxpayer bailouts just like back in 2008 GFC.

              And yes, it is a silly argument, I made it to show how silly your earlier argument was… (genuinely) hope you can see that?

          • TilacVIP on 08/04/2020 - 08:10
            +2

            @MementoMori: If that's how you read it then you have very little between your eyes that functioning in a normal rational manner.

            • MementoMori on 11/04/2020 - 11:47

              @TilacVIP: Oh, I see! An ad hominem attack. Brilliant argument, can't disagree with that.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2020 - 10:59
      +69

      Can't pay mortgage payments with compassion.

      • geoffs87 on 05/04/2020 - 14:37
        +20

        What about thoughts and prayers? I hear they’re good currency these days…

        • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2020 - 14:58
          +12

          There's a lot of it these days. Inflation pretty much devalued the crap out of it.

    • ozhunter on 05/04/2020 - 14:24
      +9

      Feel free to pay the difference of what the tenant won't pay.

    • iDroid on 05/04/2020 - 21:25

      Have you?

    • nignucial on 05/04/2020 - 23:04

      Chill, Bro :)

    • hopper on 06/04/2020 - 10:00

      username needs to be changed

    • picklewizard on 06/04/2020 - 11:53

      I bet you saw this comment being accepted differently in your head eh

      Why does suddenly property ownership = charity?

    • smartazz104 on 06/04/2020 - 17:34

      Have you considered directing that at the tenant?

    • cameldownunder on 07/04/2020 - 14:16
      +2

      Bad investment ! Shares not paying dividend, and share value going down - same thing.

  • Baysew on 05/04/2020 - 10:32
    +42

    What did your real estate agent advise?

    He's a painter

    Does your property need a repaint?

    • baybeejuice on 05/04/2020 - 10:42
      +25

      He already painted the place before he moved in as an agreement to reduce the rent

      • Baysew on 05/04/2020 - 12:57
        +8

        What did your real estate agent advise? (The people that deal with these sort of things that you are paying to manage your property)

        • baybeejuice on 05/04/2020 - 13:33
          +12

          Real estate agent said i don't have to agree and that her other Landlords are waiting for further news from government to see if there's assistance or guidelines for landlords/renters.

          • Baysew on 05/04/2020 - 16:32
            +2

            @baybeejuice: Seems reasonable advice for now. A lot will depend on an individuals landlord's situation on how these things are sorted.

          • HeWhoKnows on 06/04/2020 - 15:43
            +2

            @baybeejuice: Accept what rent the tenant can pay for now but show unpaid amount as amount owing and carried over.
            The problem with granting a rent reduction is that a minimum of 60 days notice must be given to increase it again.
            This moratorium on evictions is rubbish.
            Who is going to cover the landlords outgoings and living costs?
            So instead of the tenant going broke, the landlord goes broke instead and loses thier property.
            Landlords will just choose to leave properties EMPTY.
            So less properties available for rent.
            Well thought out plan by government.

            • vindictus on 07/04/2020 - 04:41
              +23

              @HeWhoKnows: Landlords seem to be the only people who invest in something and never expect it not to suffer a downturn. It's amazing.

              • Mr Haj on 07/04/2020 - 08:46

                @vindictus: The government is protecting the consumers and bending landlords over. I am not a landlord myself but I do feel for them more than the consumers who live from pay day to pay day and are now putting their hand out for centrelink payments.

                • markathome on 07/04/2020 - 20:16
                  +1

                  @Mr Haj: I've lost a small fortune in shares. It's one of the great tragedies of all-time. I appreciate your sympathy but I'll also forward you my bank details, so you can put your sympathy into action.

                  When capitalism fails, Mr Haj, you can step in, fill the void and make the rich richer!

                  On the OP's question, compassion is one thing but 70% is a bit of stretch push back with $330 (70% of rent).

              • gunslinger on 08/04/2020 - 14:45

                @vindictus: Really?
                Property investment carries a certain level of risk, property prices decreasing, property damage, vacancy. Landlords are aware of and factor in these risks to their future plans.
                Until now, it's not happened (to my knowledge) that the government has stated that landlords cannot evict tenants. This is akin to government appropriation of property without compensation to an extent.
                I've no doubt that property prices will take a hit, just like everything else, but landlords are expected to take the full hit of (effectively forced) reduced rent as well?
                And so many upvotes, sigh.

      • dcep on 05/04/2020 - 22:32

        does your current ppor needs a repaint ?

    • GoldenDragon888 on 05/04/2020 - 12:02
      +4

      Not here on OzLandlord. They (generally) expect the lot.

      • brendanm on 05/04/2020 - 12:49
        +50

        Shock horror, people expect the amount agreed to in a contract. Who would have thought.

        • ceebee on 07/04/2020 - 03:04
          +14

          ? Shock horror, people didn't expect the entire worlds economy to shut down, either. So whats your point? Hard times are hitting everyone. You're not special nor exempt from them.

          • brendanm on 07/04/2020 - 06:46
            +5

            @ceebee: Savings? Massive jobseeker allowance? Multiple $750 handouts? Or should the tenant just pocket all of that?

            • starspawn on 07/04/2020 - 07:42
              +3

              @brendanm: That's if the tenant is entitled to all that to start with!

              Rent reduction would be the best option, they clearly don't want to leave the property.

              Pay the rest back when they are up and running again.

              • brendanm on 07/04/2020 - 09:28
                +2

                @starspawn: Why wouldn't they be?

                Rent reduction, possibly. 70%, no.

              • MementoMori on 07/04/2020 - 13:17
                +1

                @starspawn: If the tenants financial situation is accurate they are entitled to very decent job seeker allowances, enough to pay this rent.

      • geoffs87 on 05/04/2020 - 14:44
        +36

        Come on down to my store… oh you lost your job, here have 70% off

        Thanks for filling up your car, oh you lost your job, here have 70% off

        Man the list goes on. But those people above own a business, they must be rich too right? They should take a hit so someone who lost their job can “get a fair go”.

        I’ve never been unemployed, I’m sure it’s a tough time… but you know, I have a mortgage, wife and child, and I have enough cash saved up for at least 6 months rainy days if I fall on hard times. Why should the LL have to take a financial hit because their tenant didn’t sort their sh!t out. Easy to say in hindsight, but one probably shouldn’t enter into contracts they might not be able to afford if something goes wrong. Let this be a lesson - everyone needs a rainy day fund.

        • knk on 05/04/2020 - 20:24
          +12

          "I have enough cash saved up for at least 6 months rainy days if I fall on hard times."

          Likewise - It's pathetic that other people don't do the same when they can. I understand that some experience genuine hardship, but if you don't have 3-6 months worth of cash to get you by if you lose your job in my opinion you literally can't afford shit. You can't afford to eat out, can't afford holidays etc.

          • nignucial on 05/04/2020 - 23:11
            +2

            @knk: Same goes to landlords?

            • smartazz104 on 06/04/2020 - 17:36
              +1

              @nignucial: Landlords don't save up money so freeloaders can stay in their property and pay a fraction of the rent.

            • knk on 06/04/2020 - 20:29
              +4

              @nignucial: Correct also. I have 6 months worth.

              Doesn't mean i should get (profanity) by a non paying tenant and a change of legislation.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join